Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[rjh4 is back]

Fair enough about the FSM, but you conveniently dropped my point about Allah, or any other religion for that matter.

So how do you know your revelations are correct and theirs are not? Where are the standards here?

My understanding is that Islam accepts at least some of the Bible, including the Gospels, and yet they do not believe Jesus died on the cross or rose from the dead. Since the Gospels teach that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, there is a disconnect in Islam. Which teaching of Islam should one follow?

I am fully aware that you are certain God exists, but the act of believing does not make the belief true. If that was the case then every religion would be true, which you and i both know isn't the case. Again, when you have contradictory claims based on the same standard of evidence you must use another standard by which to discern between the claims.

As far as I know Christianity is the only one based on God coming to earth, dying on a cross for sins, and then rising from the dead as evidence that Jesus was God with us (all being done in history). That is enough for me.

True and false are not absolute terms, they are laws that are designed to be consistent with any statement you could make about reality.

If true and false are not absolute, what does this mean?

"Any statement is either true or fase." (the law of excluded middle)

If tue and false are not absolute, the law of excluded middle seems to be unitelligible.

Do you realise how retarded you sound?

I do realize how stupid some of my questions were. That was kind of my point. I was just going with the idea that the laws of logic were a human invention. I do think that that kind of thing is where such a position leads.

This is what I mean by being consistent with reality, your model would not be consistent.

How does one determine what is consistent with reality? What is the standard if all is relative?

Eastern logic? Never heard of it.

Also, embraces contradictions? Contradictions are things that by definition are incompatible. If you can demonstrate that something held as contradictory is in fact not, then it is no longer a contradiction, but contradictions are still, as defined, incompatible.

As I understand it, while Western logic would say a statement is either true or false (and/or), Eastern logic allows for a statement to be both true and false (both/and). So this would also be a logic that is a human invention. If logic is a human invention, then both would be equally valid it seems.

They all deserved a lot more mockery than i gave them, lets just say that.

Quite true but it seems to me that the only reason that they do not make sense is that we have this thing called logic that we know is valid for evaluating almost everything. It seems to me that the position that logic is a human invention does not really square with our intuition regarding logic. It seems to me that a much better explanation is that it is a tool that God gave us.

But people still had a mechanism for escaping the consequences of Sin, so your 'unique' piece of Christian theology is invalid.

"Had" is the key word there. Today, Christianity is unique in this regard. I also am pretty sure that Christianity is the only religion where God does everything to secure our salvation and mankind just needs to trust in that. All the others involve some sort of works oriented salvation whereby we do good just to appease God. In that regard, Christianity is the easiest requirements for salvation but certainly one of the most reviled. It seems to me most of mankind would try to work towards God instead of relying on what God has already provided. Go figure.

Why is that still taught if Jesus died for the consequences of sin? (though if you don't accept original sin then no need to answer)

I accept the doctrine of original sin but we all also have personal sin. I really do not understand what you are asking. Could you try to rephrase please?